Industrial Company v. Hong
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Perez Hong, a merchant, filed a complaint against Industrial Company, Inc., a manufacturer of jute bags, seeking to recover P114,752.50. This amount represented a deposit or advance payment for sacks that the company allegedly failed to deliver. The plaintiff also sought legal interest, attorney's fees, and costs. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of Perez Hong on July 17, 1967, ordering Industrial Company, Inc. to pay the sum of P114,752.50, plus P3,000.00 in attorney's fees and costs. Industrial Company, Inc. filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond on August 10, 1967. The trial court approved the record on appeal on October 24, 1967, and elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 40816-R. The appellant filed its printed record on appeal on March 5, 1968. 3. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on November 19, 1968, upon motion by the appellee, who argued that the record on appeal failed to demonstrate timely perfection. This dismissal was based on the appellee's assertion that the record on appeal did not include copies of the motions for extension to file the record on appeal or the orders granting these extensions, nor did it specify when these orders were received. The Court of Appeals denied the appellant's motion for reconsideration. Industrial Company, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the dismissal was improper because the record on appeal substantially showed that the appeal was perfected on time, and that the inclusion of motions for extension and their granting orders was not mandatory under Revised Rule 41.
Issue(s)
Whether the record on appeal sufficiently showed that the appeal was perfected on time, despite the absence of copies of motions for extension and the orders granting them. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal based on the alleged deficiency in the record on appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals and ordered the reinstatement of the appeal for consideration and resolution on its merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the record on appeal to show timeliness: The Court held that Section 6 of Revised Rule 41 requires the record on appeal to include data showing that the appeal was perfected on time. However, it clarified that motions for extension and the orders granting them are not necessarily related to the judgment being appealed or essential for understanding the issues. Therefore, their inclusion is not always imperative. The Court found that the recital in the record on appeal, which stated the date of receipt of the decision, the filing of the appeal bond and notice of appeal, and the extensions granted for filing the record on appeal, substantially satisfied the rule. This recital apprised the appellate court of the timeliness of the appeal. The Court emphasized that if these recitals were incorrect, it was incumbent upon the appellee (Perez Hong) to object to the approval of the record on appeal by the trial court. On the alleged error of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the appeal: The Court found that the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals was improper. The Court distinguished the present case from previous rulings cited by the respondent, where the records on appeal lacked any indication of when the appellants were notified of the decisions or orders, thus preventing the appellate court from determining the timeliness of the appeals. In this case, the record on appeal contained sufficient data to indicate that the appeal was perfected on time, as the record on appeal was filed within the extended period granted by the lower court. The Court reiterated that the failure to include copies of motions for extension and their corresponding orders did not render the record on appeal insufficient for the purpose of showing timeliness, especially when the appellee did not challenge the approval of the record on appeal.
Main Doctrine
The recital in the record on appeal stating the dates of notification of the decision, filing of the appeal bond and notice of appeal, and the extensions granted for filing the record on appeal, substantially satisfies the requirement of Section 6 of Revised Rule 41 to show that the appeal was perfected on time, provided that the opposing party does not object to the approval of the record on appeal.